Annotated Bibliography

Mary Elizabeth Lowe

English 1101

Dr. Hughes


Topic: The United States should not descend into further exclusion or journey down the path of unconstitutional decisions by adopting an official language; furthermore, the United States should continue offering bilingual ballots in order to ensure that fundamental rights are sustained and to strengthen this country.



Zuckerman, Michael A., "Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting
Rights" (2009). Cornell Law School Working Papers. Paper 62.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/62


This source provides an informative overview of the English Only Movement in addition to facts and stories concerning the voting issue and cites other dilemmas including the Constitutional vulnerability of a purposed English Only Movement. As evidence that English Only is unconstitutional, it brings into consideration the 14th amendment and states that language is the new proxy for race. One extremely compelling quote for both bilingual ballots and against English Only, is stated by the educated Zuckerman as he says, “Furthermore, the fact of a state applying its English-only policies to voter registration is independently suspect because the state is affecting voting rights, which are fundamental, and have historically been used as a tool for discrimination.” Another direct cite from this paper is the quotation from the fifteenth amendment. It guarantees that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This is another solid argument in favor of bilingual ballots and against a national language. I would use this, and the many other facts and stories in this article to my paper by bringing to light the fact that if this nation deemed English it’s national language, it would have to uphold this law in all areas. This would include the removal of bilingual ballots and that would take away many American citizens’ right to vote, which is a constitutional right.



Crawford, James. "The Question of Minority Language Rights." Language Loyalties A
Source Book on the Official English Controversy. New York: University Of
Chicago, 1992. Print.


This article begins with many provoking questions such as, “What would be the legal impact of an English Language Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?” and “Does it seek primarily to make a symbolic statement about the role of English as our common language or to protect the dominant status of English by outlawing all (or all but a few) public uses of other tongues?” These questions are followed by both the pros and cons of English Only and declares that both sides are valid but will certainly have a profound effect on all speakers of this nation. As the chapter progresses he says, “voting in anything other than the national tongue offends the civic assumptions of many Americans.” This is primarily due to our history for the United States is indeed a nation of immigrants.
He also cites the 1987 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which had “prohibited arbitrary language policies on the job – that is, English-only rules that have no demonstrated business necessity – as a form of national-origin discrimination.” I will use parts of this chapter to further develop the idea that the United States is a nation of immigrants and to suddenly state that English must be the official language encroaches upon the very history of our “toss salad” nation.